• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?

BPSCG said:
What, if we allow gay marriage, I'm gonna start ******* my mother?

I bet I don't.
Click to expand...

Must.... Not..... Make..... Joke......

(erghhhhhhh!!!!!)

OK... I'm over it.

I think I do this the same way I justify gay marriage without justifying having sex with BPSCG's.... (erghhhh!!!!)

Sorry. I'm really over it now.

Anyway....

As someone pointed out, the marriage vs. incest isn't a problem. More of a problem would be justifying gay sex without justifying incest among willing partners with no chance of pregnancy. As a moral issue, as the sterile brother and sister humping away doesn't effect me outside of giving me the willies... I don't care. Have at it.

As a matter of law it is not so simple. The difference being that virtually no birth control method short of wholesale removal of reproductive organs is foolproof, and there is a pretty good state interest in avoiding the nasty effects of inbreeding. A wholesale ban may be slightly too broad for that purpose as it may include harmless sex. Making "chance of pregnancy" an element of a crime is a bit too much of a burden and would justify the state obtaining detailed medical records and maybe even examinations via the power to investigate crime...

However, one could also claim that the state has an interest in keeping incest taboo as to avoid any chance of the conduct becoming more acceptable and then taking its toll on the genetic pool.

To sum up, in theory there isn't much immoral with bro and sis tearing one off when pregnancy is impossible as it does not affect me or any other innocent party outside of getting the willies. However, in practice there are legitimate reasons for a state to ban the conduct.
 
How do you justify gay marriage without justifying incest?
Click to expand...

One must be clear what one means here.

If you mean what consenting adults do behind closed doors, then you indeed justify both those, and other activities, and properly so.

A free people do not hire a government to regulate their sexuality. As the wise sage Madonna once said, "Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

And let's face it. Laws about incest have nothing really to do with potential birth defects, and everything to do with politicians taking advantage of the historical ickiness factor left over from the ignorant history of humanity.



But if you mean child abuse or rape, then of course that's wrong. But that's already wrong, for other reasons than relativity, and properly so.
 
I'd be willing to bet* that the ratio of loving, consensual relationships to abusive relationships is magnitudes lower for incestous relationships, even between adults, than for non-incestous relationships.

That would be my reason for keeping the laws against incest.

[Crude joke removed]

*Actually I wouldn't, since I dislike betting, but I like the phrase.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
In fact, as far as I know, there are places in the world, among them American states, that allow cousins to marry if one of them is sterile.
Click to expand...

Which is in clealy discriminatory. One off cousin marrage is not much a problem (most of the issues kick in when families keep doing it).

Or are you suggesting we ban marrage for over 40s unless one of them is sterile?
 
Incest

Well, I've read through this and I have yet to see one good argument against either incest or gay marriage.

And as far as incest between very close kin, if one partner is sterile, not going to be a chance of genetic problems.

Big deal.
 
Most states have laws forbidding the marriage of close relatives.

Most states have laws forbidding children from marrying or marriage to multiple partners or animals.

States don't usually have laws requiring that the parties marrying be of the opposite sex. No laws need to be changed in any state to allow same sex marriage. A law has to specifically state it's illegal technically to forbid it-- hence the rush to DOMA and state laws about (ha) keeping marriage sacred or whatever.

Legally, separate is not equal... and not allowing privileges to some people that you don't allow to others because of their sexual orientation is a violation of equal rights.

As long as no first cousin marriages are allowed no matter what your gender or sexual orientation, then no one's rights are being violated under the equal protection clause. Homosexual rights ARE being violated if their state has not declared that marriage must be between a man and a woman-- and they may be doing so even if they have passed such a law-- at one time you could not marry between races in some states-- that was held to be a violation of the equal protection clause. Homosexual marriages are seen as a similar violation legally.
 
EGarrett said:
The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?
Click to expand...


What is the chance that an incestuous relationship started out as a consensual pairing of two adults, free from duress or overreaching?

How does that chance compare to the chance that a homosexual relationship started out as such?

The possibility of allowing a home environment where children are preyed upon by more mature, sophisticated and sexually secure adults outweighs whatever freedoms are denied to incestuous but otherwise consenting adults.
 
My neighbour's cats are an incestuous crowd: the oldest mother has had children from her own sons and grandsons, these children have bred amongst themselves, and so on. They all seem to be doing just fine.

I don't see any reason to ban incest. I do see reasons to ban fathers or mothers from having sex with their under-age kids, but that's another story.

Does anybody have some serious information about the real genetic dangers of a brother and sister pair having children?
 
Loss Leader said:
What is the chance that an incestuous relationship started out as a consensual pairing of two adults, free from duress or overreaching?
Click to expand...

I don't know; what are the chances?

Furthermore, does this argument apply to siblings of about the same age-group? If so, how? I mean, I can see the potential for abuse if you let parents and kids go at it, but brothers and sisters? What about cousins?

I can see outlawing sex between someone and his/her legal guardian; but if that's what you want to do, why invoke incest at all?

As for genetic defects, etc, is it illegal for mothers to drink and smoke during pregnancy? Because if it isn't (and you don't think it should be), there's something seriously wrong with outlawing incest based on the possibility of "birth defects."
 
Last edited:
EGarrett said:
This is the only logical difficulty I see when I'm arguing gay rights with people. I've said in the past that there is no logical argument against gay marriage, and that's pretty much true, but looking deeper into the justification for gay marriage (people have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't harm others or harm the functioning of society...and homosexuality does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality, pedophilia and incest are harmful to the animal, the child or the offspring).

The only problem is, how do you respond when your opponent points out that you must support incest as long as they don't have children?
Click to expand...

Noone is born with a natural urge to hump thier mom or dad or sister.
 
There's an increased risk because they are likely to share the same recessive genes since they have half their genes in common... giving each recessive gene a chance a one in 4 chance of appearing in any given mating. But the odds are still better than 85% that the kids will be fine unless you know in advance both are carriers of something like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis... most people don't know what they are carriers for until an offspring has two copies of a recessive gene.

Incest is illegal but I don't think it's likely to be prosecuted amongst consenting adults... there is the social "ick" factor, however. Marriage laws forbidding it are cloaked in rape laws and the fear of medical freaks... but I think it's more of a social ick factor that has evolved...

We aren't the only primate that finds close kin "undesirable" as sex partners. Female baboons, chase out the dominant male (their dad) when they come of age... because they are, no doubt, eager for a change.
 
Nope. Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges...

It's true of dogs, anyhow.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Nope. Just that the Oedipus Complex is more prevalent... and males are more likely to have strong but socially unacceptable sexual urges...

It's true of dogs, anyhow.
Click to expand...
Since we were discussing humans, I posit you this question:

Is the issue having the urges, or acting on them? Your assertion was that the urges were less (how you'd know that is a mystery) whereas acting on those urges might be more easily collectible via evidentiary means.

Was that your intended point: more likely to so act on the urge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom